Why do we even need marriage?

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

are you arguing that the marriage contract have a mandatory renewal clause???  hey how much coffee have you had today?

[SDML]

Certainly you're not asserting that ALL contracts have mandatory renewal clauses, because that would be not only wrong, but silly.

[Vermouth]

my opposition to same sex marriage has nothing to do with religion.  it is a screwed up life style the manifestation of mental illness.

Your opinion that homosexuality is a mental illness isn't shared by the general population. The laws of the country are supposed to reflect the views of society.

I think if so many people out there are offended at the idea of gay marriage, and that people who are gay shouldn't be able to get married, then I think that the institution of marriage for everyone shouldn't be in the lawbooks in the first place and should be replaced with civil unions.  That's my reasoning for wanting to abolish the legality of marriage.

I agree. That's the simplest solution.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

BS  most people who are honest within themselves know that it is messed up and don't need a dr, pol or the politically correct media to tell them..unfortunately most want to be liked and are therefore easily led. until 1982? the apa listed homosexuality as a personality disorder.  this changed not as a result of science but pop culture.

[conley]

BS  most people who are honest within themselves know that it is messed up and don't need a dr, pol or the politically correct media to tell them..unfortunately most want to be liked and are therefore easily led. until 1982? the apa listed homosexuality as a personality disorder.  this changed not as a result of science but pop culture.

you're crazy man...this arguement doesn't even make sense. some people are just born that way and they're still people like you and me, and should be subject to the same laws. they're not hurting anyone. if you want to call it a personality disorder that's fine but you'll be the only one, as you said the APA realized they were wrong to classify it like that.

why are you so afraid of gay people? 

[conley]

it also cracks me up that the same people who push the 'sanctity of marriage' usually have at least a divorce or two...and if you see the marriage proposals at a nascar race you'll see there's nothing really pure about it. gays who have been allowed to marry have a lower divorce rate than straight people, and at least with gays you don't usually end up with single parent homes w/ children

[Vermouth]

until 1982? the apa listed homosexuality as a personality disorder.  this changed not as a result of science but pop culture.

The APA is full of disorders that are defined not strictly on a person's mental processes but on the relationship between those processes and the culture we live in. Eating disorders only became a problem in the context of a leisurely society. Homosexuality was only considered a problem when it was not accepted by the general population. Just because the majority of people aren't gay doesn't mean they are "messed up" any more than you or I are based on our own idiosyncrasies.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

wow!  kim lee says that it is so and therefore it must be.  i am not afraid of gay people or the big bad wolf for that matter.  could care less what two consenting adults do within the privacy of their own domain.  i also intuitively recognize that this behavior falls outside of species design and refuse to play along with this pop culture fad attempting to paint this behavior as a normal and beautiful expression of human sexuality.  never said anything re the "sanctity of marriage" only spoke of the benefits of marriage as an institution.

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

Actually, this kind of behavior is NOT outside species design. Homosexual behavior exists among many species as this National Geographic articles discusses.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

There would be additional benefit if we allowed gays to wed. DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) pay higher taxes than two single individuals living in the same household.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

true but man is not just any species.  equating man to animals excuses abhorrent/aberrant. 

[Vermouth]

There would be additional benefit if we allowed gays to wed. DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) pay higher taxes than two single individuals living in the same household.

If it's going to increase tax revenues, what is the government waiting for? 

Social/scientific/religious explanations for homosexuality are beside the point.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

surely you are not suggesting that we tax individuals based upon sexual orientation?  are you trying to take the gay out of gay.  why do you seek to legitimize a life style that is at its core illegitimate?

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

I was not advocating taxing individuals based upon sexual orientation. I was meerly pointing out that under the screw-ball tax code that we all follow, married couples with dual incomes and no children pay more in taxes than do two single people living together. I know that cuz I'm a DINK. If I were to divorce my wife (of 25 years) we could reduce our tax burden by several hundred dollars.

So the only thing I was pointing out is if we allow gays to marry/form civil unions whatever the heck you want to call it, tax revenue will increase by virtue of the tax code.

I really don't have a dog to hunt into whether gay marriage is allowed or not. I've always believed that living in a free country meant being able to do what ever you wanted as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. Two guys or gals living together and getting the same rights and privileges that my wife and I have does not infringe on my freedom in the least. 

[tmbtc]

I was not advocating taxing individuals based upon sexual orientation. I was meerly pointing out that under the screw-ball tax code that we all follow, married couples with dual incomes and no children pay more in taxes than do two single people living together. I know that cuz I'm a DINK. If I were to divorce my wife (of 25 years) we could reduce our tax burden by several hundred dollars.

This is very true...I know a man who actually followed through with this and did divorce his wife, for this very reason. They still live together, are still in love etc., but they went ahead and got divorced. I don't know how much money they saved by doing this, but considering that they are fairly wealthy individuals, I would bet they are saving a lot more than just a few hundred dollars a year. It wouldn't have made sense for them to pay for the divorce otherwise.

No one likes the tax code.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

your apparent dissatisfaction with the tax codes and gay marriage are not the same issue.  homosexuals and  there supporters are not pushing gay marriage for the tax advantage. again this is about legitimizing a life choice/style that despite  the best efforts of the left and media most of this country rejects.